Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Has anyone read series "Earth Chronicle" by Zecheria Sitchin? He interpreted the oldest written text(Sumarian cuneiform) of the Origins of mankind. Its hard to believe because its seems so fantastic but it coincides with the same themes of all the ancient "Origin stories" from around the world. These cultures had no way of interaction, at least to date this isolation has not been disproved. The Olmecs(Meso-America)
Hindi books "Rig Veda" Egyptians, Asia I.E. Japan, Chine, . I realize geographically India,Mesopotamia and Egypt are close but we are talking 3,700 B.C. All have the same story of Beings descending from the heavens and giving us the Knowledge of Civilization. The one thing that strikes me is, after the Millenia of us being cave dwellers and wearing animal skins, stone tools etc.,it is literally over night that we start having Walled Cities, Organized Army's ,Agriculture, Astronomy. The ancients new that our planetary system was Heliocentric almost 4,000 B.C. and within 6,000 years of these coinciding "Ancient Mythos Origin stories" we are exploring space. Its interesting to me how we stayed stagnant for a Million years and we have progressed so much within a couple thousand . The Bible even talks about the Nephilim who come down "from the heavens" and find the earth beings beautiful and mate with them thus introducing new Genetic codes. We only use up to 10% of our Brain? 60% of our DNA is dormant? Just interesting.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
We only use up to 10% of our Brain?

no, every part of our brain has a very specific function, and were we to "use" more of our brain at once than we would normally, it would function worse. Neuronal activity is very specific.

Yeah, what inimalist said, we use at least 15%.

Thanks for the input. I was told in college biology that we used 10% so that's the extent of my Neurological knowledge besides how synapse work with the chemical exchange of neurons but...... That wasn't the point of my thread but thanx.

Like technology our natural evolution worked on an exponential scale rather than linear. Hallucinogens probably played a big part in the forming of early makinds spiritual beleifs which would explain why a lot of them are similiar.

I can accept the idea of the Hallucinogens theory but for them all to have the same "Trip? They all took Hallucinegens and came up with the concepts of Agriculture,Commerce, Orginized Warfare, Math, Science, Art? That seems a stretch wouldnt you think.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Thanks for the input. I was told in college biology that we used 10% so that's the extent of my Neurological knowledge besides how synapse work with the chemical exchange of neurons but...... That wasn't the point of my thread but thanx.

you should ask for your money back from that class

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, what inimalist said, we use at least 15%.

No, we use all of it. The myth stems from research that found only about 10 to 20% of the brain has specific dedicated functions. The rest is the nondedicated processing space, something like RAM on a computer. It would be possible to get some of the mythical effects of using "more of your brain" by increasing the size of certain dedicated areas of the cortex in order to give someone superhuman dexterity but doing so would severely damage the ability to think.

There's another great argument against the 10% myth. If we're not using all that space how is it that brain injuries consistently cause problems for people? Or better yet (I got this one from a college psych teacher) if you're not using 90% of you're brain, could I have some of it?


Originally posted by Lycanthrope
60% of our DNA is dormant?

Actually it's 95% of out genome that has no known purpose. There are several theories:

1) that 95% hides our psionic angel powers
2) we've only been looking for a few decades and genetics is very complex so junk DNA might really be doing something
3) junk DNA provides redundancy that our genome needs
4) junk DNA exists because our DNA is constantly being shredded by various things and having 95% empty space reduces the chances of dangerous mutation
5) the government put it there to keep tabs on everybody

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
The Bible even talks about the Nephilim who come down "from the heavens" and find the earth beings beautiful and mate with them thus introducing new Genetic codes.

Really? The Bible talks explicitly about genetics?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I can accept the idea of the Hallucinogens theory but for them all to have the same "Trip? They all took Hallucinegens and came up with the concepts of Agriculture,Commerce, Orginized Warfare, Math, Science, Art? That seems a stretch wouldnt you think.

They didn't all have the same trip. Hence all the different gods and beliefs.

Agriculture, Commerce, Orginized Warfare, Math, Science, Art are limited by what's actually possible and then by what happens to be practical. Math and Science especially aren't going to work out differently because of where people think they came from, both are rooted in facts and are just about universally applicable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, we use all of it. The myth stems from research that found only about 10 to 20% of the brain has specific dedicated functions. The rest is the nondedicated processing space, something like RAM on a computer. It would be possible to get some of the mythical effects of using "more of your brain" by increasing the size of certain dedicated areas of the cortex in order to give someone superhuman dexterity but doing so would severely damage the ability to think.

There's another great argument against the 10% myth. If we're not using all that space how is it that brain injuries consistently cause problems for people? Or better yet (I got this one from a college psych teacher) if you're not using 90% of you're brain, could I have some of it?

also, the 10% myth indicates that a doctor should be able to remove 90% of a person's brain, and that individual would still have normal cognitive function.

I'd quibble that 80-90% of the brain shows no differentiation. Lobes, though generally, have fairly specific functions. All I'm trying to say is that there is not 80% brain mass that can just be made to process any one thing. That type of mass is more likely in the parietal/frontal cortex, and related to attention or WM (though working memory in recent findings has some pretty specific activations and whatever).

An interesting point about the dexterity thing. That would be growth of the specialized motor system, and likely would not steal function from other general cognitive function, but instead, nearby motor function. I can't say for sure, but what might end up happening is bleed over from growth in cells representing finger movement to those right next to it. It might integrate (like synestesia) two movements into a single command, making it difficult to say, move a finger without also moving the arm, or it may take space that the arm could have used, lowering arm dexterity.

Long story short, many of the systems in the brain are moderately localized so that there isn't really any multi-purpose RAM. Each system likely has its own working memory, in addition to normal working memory (so like, visual short term memory is different than visio-spatial short term memory is different from working memory, and problems with each do not necessarily damage the function of others ). Also, most brain regions have some degree of function attributed to them. There is little brain mass that scientists are totally clueless about the function of.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
came up with the concepts of Agriculture,Commerce, Orginized Warfare, Math, Science, Art? That seems a stretch wouldnt you think.

sociology has very detailed theories about the origins of each of these things individually. Some are related to geographical and climate conditions, others to the organization of social and family groups.

Further, many of these practices have visible correlations to behaviours found in the wild, indicating that people didn't "come up" with them, but that the ideas are genetically predisposed.

Also, to say that agriculture, commerce, or any other one of those variables started in the same way throughout the world is untrue. Farming practices vary dramatically world wide, especially in climates where only very specific crops grow. Religious mythology is much the same.

You would do yourself a favor to read "Guns, Germs & Steel"

Originally posted by inimalist
also, the 10% myth indicates that a doctor should be able to remove 90% of a person's brain, and that individual would still have normal cognitive function.

I'd quibble that 80-90% of the brain shows no differentiation. Lobes, though generally, have fairly specific functions. All I'm trying to say is that there is not 80% brain mass that can just be made to process any one thing. That type of mass is more likely in the parietal/frontal cortex, and related to attention or WM (though working memory in recent findings has some pretty specific activations and whatever).

You're so smart.

And I feel clever because I actually understood some of that.

Originally posted by inimalist
An interesting point about the dexterity thing. That would be growth of the specialized motor system, and likely would not steal function from other general cognitive function, but instead, nearby motor function. I can't say for sure, but what might end up happening is bleed over from growth in cells representing finger movement to those right next to it. It might integrate (like synestesia) two movements into a single command, making it difficult to say, move a finger without also moving the arm, or it may take space that the arm could have used, lowering arm dexterity.

But it sounded cool, right? I was thinking of using that as part of a character design. Basically they make a CaptainAmerica type person by expanding the size of the motor function areas, which uses up parts of his higher brain functions and damages his ability to think rationally.

Originally posted by inimalist
Long story short, many of the systems in the brain are moderately localized so that there isn't really any multi-purpose RAM. Each system likely has its own working memory, in addition to normal working memory (so like, visual short term memory is different than visio-spatial short term memory is different from working memory, and problems with each do not necessarily damage the function of others ). Also, most brain regions have some degree of function attributed to them. There is little brain mass that scientists are totally clueless about the function of.

I knew about that the functions of the lobes were pretty well figured out but I didn't know anyone had figured out many more specifics than the motor and sensory strips. That's cool, so much information on the brain is out of date (as Lycanthrope's class showed).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're so smart.

And I feel clever because I actually understood some of that.

lol, hardly, I just pay good money to have people talk this stuff at me for a few hours every day.

but yes, I eat brains for breakfast

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it sounded cool, right? I was thinking of using that as part of a character design. Basically they make a CaptainAmerica type person by expanding the size of the motor function areas, which uses up parts of his higher brain functions and damages his ability to think rationally.

lol, thats more accurate. It is just that, finger dexterity probably can't get good enough that it enlarges the entire motor system that way.

However, it is almost more true that a small motor cortex/system would produce faster (though not more dexterous/variable) movement, as it would be a lean system with far less connections.

I like the idea for the character. I've had one for a while now where the power is sort of active and almost instantaneous control over neuroplasticity (able to rewire brain). Lots of cool things I've thought of with the character, not the least of which is the sort of thing you described.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I knew about that the functions of the lobes were pretty well figured out but I didn't know anyone had figured out many more specifics than the motor and sensory strips. That's cool, so much information on the brain is out of date (as Lycanthrope's class showed).

Indeed, a lot of the stuff I learn in my classes is out of date compared to the stuff I'm looking at in my lab. Its one of the exciting things about psychology, unlike physics or chem or even to some extent biology, psych has so many fundamentals yet to be discovered, and because of this, it is changing at a ridiculous rate. Even now, psychology has grown so much since even the 50s that it is almost inappropriate to call all the research done under the header of "psychology" the same thing, much like physics and chemistry are highly intertwined, though separate, schools of science.

lol, and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can point to different parts and list off all of its function, just that the idea of most of the brain having no particular function is probably not specific enough.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I can accept the idea of the Hallucinogens theory but for them all to have the same "Trip? They all took Hallucinegens and came up with the concepts of Agriculture,Commerce, Orginized Warfare, Math, Science, Art? That seems a stretch wouldnt you think. You could get in to the extreme side of it and say these people where connected via the plants(in my opinion mushrooms) they used and shared the same experiences although unknown to them. Magic mushrooms have an amazing ability to make you feel connected to every one, especially noticable when around others under there influence. I think hallucinogens are natures way of teaching, to help us understand the universe which would be why these cultures were similiar in many ways and how we got to where we are today.

Unfortunatley most people are to closed minded to consider drugs played any part in the evolution of human society.

Taking a crash course in human history might help, but that's probably not very likely. The simple explanation is that agriculture allows for increased specialization, and specialization leads to all of the great things you listed. (Walled Cities, Organized Armies,Agriculture, Astronomy)

That ag. sprouted in many (6) places simulatneously shows that people are smart- it took that long to shift from hunter/gathering lifestyles to agricultural ones after the ice age- it didn't appear earlier b/c it didn't need to. The changing climate spurred innovation in farming.

Guns, Germs and Steel is a good read, as is Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Both give insight into your question.

Originally posted by Magee
Unfortunatley most people are to closed minded to consider drugs played any part in the evolution of human society.

I don't think that is true...

there really is no abundance of evidence that they did over and above human experimentation...

the religious influences of ayahusca and snuff in latin and south America are studied heavily, as with the traditional coca use.

I think you may be making an attribution error common to drug use. People confuse the affects of the drug (higher activation in the brain creating more meaningful connects between things that normally would not meet threshold activation) for actual perception. The "everything is part of me..." etc, feeling one derives from mushrooms is an effect of the drug, and not of reality. It is just our minds did not evolve to separate the subjective experience of hallucination from that of regular perception, and it is only at the highest cognitive levels that one can assure themselves "it is only the drugs"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm fairly open minded but that sounds totally baseless and silly. Well this is the religion forum.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you may be making an attribution error common to drug use. People confuse the affects of the drug (higher activation in the brain creating more meaningful connects between things that normally would not meet threshold activation) for actual perception. The "everything is part of me..." etc, feeling one derives from mushrooms is an effect of the drug, and not of reality. It is just our minds did not evolve to separate the subjective experience of hallucination from that of regular perception, and it is only at the highest cognitive levels that one can assure themselves "it is only the drugs" Some people would say that it's more than "just a drug" and that it is a great tool in reaching out to your spiritual side. It provides a different, unique perspective on things and has changed many peoples life for the better almost like it alters / heals or calms your mind. However what I said was just kind of side tracking and was nothing but reflecting on my past psychoactive thoughts. I do strongly beleive that hallucinogens played a vital role for early humans in becoming what we are today but that is a different topic.

Originally posted by Magee
Well this is the religion forum.

I consider NewAge bullshit an insult to people's intelligence.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Taking a crash course in human history might help, but that's probably not very likely. The simple explanation is that agriculture allows for increased specialization, and specialization leads to all of the great things you listed. (Walled Cities, Organized Armies,Agriculture, Astronomy)

That ag. sprouted in many (6) places simulatneously shows that people are smart- it took that long to shift from hunter/gathering lifestyles to agricultural ones after the ice age- it didn't appear earlier b/c it didn't need to. The changing climate spurred innovation in farming.

Guns, Germs and Steel is a good read, as is Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Both give insight into your question.

Thank you for your input and Book recommendation,but i dont understand how or why these concepts didnt come about before or after the many Ice ages that took place over the last 100,000 years? And Yes the Bible does mention Nephilim (another species) matting with the earth beings . Would this not be an amalgamation of different genes? It seems everyone jumped on the 10% concept but that was one of many things i mentioned, I stand corrected. How did an ancient man know anything.?.Observation, yet in the old Sumarian text they knew that we are not a Geocentric but Heliocentric planetary system. You cant know that through observation. They new of planets past mars how could they have done that through observation.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
How did an ancient man know anything.?.Observation, yet in the old Sumarian text they knew that we are not a Geocentric but Heliocentric planetary system. You cant know that through observation. They new of planets past mars how could they have done that through observation.

You realize we only know things due to observation too, right?

and that mars is visible to the naked eye?

Originally posted by inimalist
and that mars is visible to the naked eye?

And Jupiter.

And the Sun wasn't credited as center of the solar system, it was typically credited as the center of the universe (which isn't accurate as far as we know). In fact it's signifigance in religion is easily explained by the fact that it is the most consistent and powerful thing anybody could imagine at the time.

I was going to say, weren't there Greeks who were in favor of heliocentrism? they just sort of lost out to Ptolomy? I honestly don't know

Originally posted by inimalist
I was going to say, weren't there Greeks who were in favor of heliocentrism? they just sort of lost out to Ptolomy? I honestly don't know

I . . . I just looked up heliocentrism and . . . oh Jesus . . .
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

Anyway, he says the Greeks thought it up first.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize we only know things due to observation too, right?

Through observation the Sun would appear to circle the Earth. And the Sumarians new of Saturn Uranus and Pluto. They new of the collision with with earth that the Moon is a chunk of. Planetary scientist theorize that a planet, external of our Solar system, smashed into earth and this caused the fusion that generates the heat from the planet core that started the whole process of our living planet. How did the ancients know that?

Originally posted by inimalist
and that mars is visible to the naked eye?

I mentioned "past" Mars. I used past Mars because Mercury,Venus and Mars are easy for a common man to see. Jupiter would have to have been observed through its movement in the night sky after a very long time of study. Im not a scholar obviously. I was just in hopes that someone else had read Sitchins work but, i see in my trying to make a synopsis of the 12 books i didnt do it any justice because everyone is picking apart my failed attempt to summarize years of research by Sitchin.

I do think its sad that people cant offer ideas or share their knowledge with out feeling it necessary to belittle and react condescendingly to others just seeking knowledge or trying to learn something. I dont know how "Symmetric Chaos" can keep balanced when standing with such a massive head. It wouldn't surprise me if it had its own gravitational pull.hitler

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Through observation the Sun would appear to circle the Earth. And the Sumarians new of Saturn Uranus and Pluto.

Observation will also show that the course of the planets is not orderly and one can resolve that by placing the sun in the center of the solar system. Ancient thinkers had a lot of time on their hands.

I certainly can't explain how they knew about Pluto or Uranus but Saturn could probably seen by a dedicated observer when it's at certain angles relative to the Earth.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
They new of the collision with with earth that the Moon is a chunk of. Planetary scientist theorize that a planet, external of our Solar system, smashed into earth and this caused the fusion that generates the heat from the planet core that started the whole process of our living planet. How did the ancients know that?

There are ancient texts that say "a planet sized object smashed into the ancient Earth and created fusion that fuels it's internal heat to this day"? Because that would be oddly specific and technical for people from thousands of years ago. It would also not make any sense, at all.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I do think its sad that people cant offer ideas or share their knowledge with out feeling it necessary to belittle and react condescendingly to others just seeking knowledge or trying to learn something. I dont know how "Symmetric Chaos" can keep balanced when standing with such a massive head. It wouldn't surprise me if it had its own gravitational pull.hitler

I have exceptional balance and I am sorry if I offended you. I have very poor social empathy and it rarely occurs to me that people don't always want my input or might be annoyed by the way I give it.

Symmetric Chaos responded "There are ancient texts that say "a planet sized object smashed into the ancient Earth and created fusion that fuels it's internal heat to this day"? Because that would be oddly specific and technical for people from thousands of years ago. It would also not make any sense, at all."

This is my point. They did know this and this has been scientifically proved that it occurred.

And Chaos..... your input is always welcome but i am not on here arguing that i am right and everyone else is wrong or idiots so i just didnt see the need for some of the harsh responses. Please share what every you have.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I mentioned "past" Mars. I used past Mars because Mercury,Venus and Mars are easy for a common man to see.

many planets past mars are visible to the naked eye

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Jupiter would have to have been observed through its movement in the night sky after a very long time of study.

and you think aliens are more likely than long term observation and tracking of celestial bodies by early humans?

Do you like looking at the stars?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Im not a scholar obviously. I was just in hopes that someone else had read Sitchins work but, i see in my trying to make a synopsis of the 12 books i didnt do it any justice because everyone is picking apart my failed attempt to summarize years of research by Sitchin.

rarely ever is it advisable to believe the work of only one individual. Especially one who makes such wild claims

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I do think its sad that people cant offer ideas or share their knowledge with out feeling it necessary to belittle and react condescendingly to others just seeking knowledge or trying to learn something.

its not just you. generally on the internet you have to have some tolerance for people telling you exactly what they think

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I dont know how "Symmetric Chaos" can keep balanced when standing with such a massive head. It wouldn't surprise me if it had its own gravitational pull. laughing

that seems rather unnecessary

Inimalist, I have had conversations on other threads with Symmetric Chaos and he is very quick to call people idiot or silly or ignorant. On this thread he called someones thoughts Silly. I was making a point that the ancients couldn't know of all the planets because they could not observe them and he said "You do know that We only learn things through observation too right?" That was a condescending remark because one , we have telescopes in space and two, it didnt relate to the point i was making that they could not observe all the planets. I was trying to convey that, if you know something another doesn't just share it with out the sarcasm and belittling thats all and i thought i ended it with humor as to not inflame or succumb to nasty comments back and forth . From what i could tell he understood what i was saying so Yes I think it was Necessary.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Inimalist, I have had conversations on other threads with Symmetric Chaos and he is very quick to call people idiot or silly or ignorant. On this thread he called someones thoughts Silly. I was making a point that the ancients couldn't know of all the planets because they could not observe them and he said "You do know that We only learn things through observation too right?" That was a condescending remark because one , we have telescopes in space and two, it didnt relate to the point i was making that they could not observe all the planets. I was trying to convey that, if you know something another doesn't just share it with out the sarcasm and belittling thats all and i thought i ended it with humor as to not inflame or succumb to nasty comments back and forth . From what i could tell he understood what i was saying so Yes I think it was Necessary.

you probably shouldn't post on an open discussion forum on the internet if you don't want to hear people's frank opinions.

and at this point, your the one who is ignoring the topic of the thread just to moan

Originally posted by inimalist
you probably shouldn't post on an open discussion forum on the internet if you don't want to hear people's frank opinions.

and at this point, your the one who is ignoring the topic of the thread just to moan


There is a difference in being frank and being rude. I would think with your Superior intellect you would understand that. I like how spin me responding to Your post as off topic and moaning. Go massage your ego.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
There is a difference in being frank and being rude. I would think with your Superior intellect you would understand that. I like how spin me responding to Your post as off topic and moaning. Go massage your ego.

I don't understand why you are responding to me with hostility simply because I expressed disagreement and disapproval regarding what you had posted.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand why you are responding to me with hostility simply because I expressed disagreement and disapproval regarding what you had posted.


You didn't simply "express disagreement" you were accusatory. You said "I'm off topic and moaning" for responding to you. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry I started the thread. It was a topic of interest. I wanted to talk to other people interested not people who disagree to fulfill their need to feel superior by adding post to make people seem foolish. I mean why bother.I know so they can profess their wisdom over "ALL" Who needs this.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You didn't simply "express disagreement" you were accusatory. You said "I'm off topic and moaning" for responding to you. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry I started the thread. It was a topic of interest. I wanted to talk to other people interested not people who disagree to fulfill their need to feel superior by adding post to make people seem foolish. I mean why bother.I know so they can profess their wisdom over "ALL" Who needs this.

-you did not reply to my statement about more planets than just Mars being visible to the naked eye

-you did not address my point about it being more likely that ancient man was as interested in astronomy as modern man, and thus probably noticed the irregular movement of planets vs stars in the sky without the need of alien intervention

-You did not address my point about relying on a single author to form a hypothesis

What you did do was focus on the part where I mentioned it was unnecessary to get personal.

It is abundantly clear all you wanted with this thread was to proselytize some inanity, yet when questioned about it, you would rather complain that someone said something rude. Very well, notice however, any point of substance YOU have made has been answered, while you have offered nothing other than "I like this guy" in your defense.

I'm sorry people use phrases that hurt your feelings. This is a place for grown up conversation I'm afraid, and sometimes that means telling someone you think what they believe is nonsense. Please leave your martyrdom out of this?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, we use all of it.

Y-you think I might have been joking? The whole agreeing with inimalist then stating the exact opposite didn't give it away?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Symmetric Chaos responded "There are ancient texts that say "a planet sized object smashed into the ancient Earth and created fusion that fuels it's internal heat to this day"? Because that would be oddly specific and technical for people from thousands of years ago. It would also not make any sense, at all."

This is my point. They did know this and this has been scientifically proved that it occurred.

Except that the Earth isn't heated internally by fusion and I would like to see the documents where the statement is made as I seriously doubt they exist at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Y-you think I might have been joking? The whole agreeing with inimalist then stating the exact opposite didn't give it away?

Maybe I just wanted to show off my giant head.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that the Earth isn't heated internally by fusion and I would like to see the documents where the statement is made as I seriously doubt they exist at all.



Maybe I just wanted to show off my giant head.


Could you explain? Please explain to me what the core of the earth is because i am confused . Is it not the compression or immense pressure of gravity that smashes the atoms together. I really don't know i thought that was what fusion was. The smashing of Atoms? Im not being a smart A** if you know please tell me. I can find a link where Planetary science confirms the colliding of an external planet (actually a satellite from this invading planet) to our Solar system which amalgamated to form earth to which the Moon is a chunk of from the original earth. The bigger chunks,through gravitational pull , formed Earth.The heat generated, from fusion i thought, spewed gasses which started to form an atmosphere which the atmosphere is what made it possible for hydrogen and oxygen to collect and form rain thus the beginnings of life on earth.

Fusion is the process of converting lighter atoms into heavier ones (fusing them), as the Sun and other stars do. The earth core is made up of melted metals. I am not aware of such a theory of creation of the atmosphere (as I gather is what you are saying), but I don't have much knowledge of that subject, though, I don't exactly know how that would work.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Could you explain? Please explain to me what the core of the earth is because i am confused . Is it not the compression or immense pressure of gravity that smashes the atoms together. I really don't know i thought that was what fusion was. The smashing of Atoms? Im not being a smart A** if you know please tell me. I can find a link where Planetary science confirms the colliding of an external planet (actually a satellite from this invading planet) to our Solar system which amalgamated to form earth to which the Moon is a chunk of from the original earth. The bigger chunks,through gravitational pull , formed Earth.The heat generated, from fusion i thought, spewed gasses which started to form an atmosphere which the atmosphere is what made it possible for hydrogen and oxygen to collect and form rain thus the beginnings of life on earth. Earth's core is liquid iron on the outside, solid iron on the inside. Heat comes from a few sources, eg, the core hasn't completely cooled yet, it is still spinning (that's how we get our magnetic field), and there's deep radioactivity (basically the heaviest elements settle nearest to the center of gravity).

The gases forming earth's atmosphere also have a few sources: gases initially attracted to the growing planet, gases spewing from molten rock, etc.

Earth and its formation have no direct business with nuclear fusion.

This is like the telephone game . When i said fusion i meant ,Initially,the fusion of the the two planetary bodies. I new the core was molten and the cause was from the collision this was my only point. Initially. Thanks for the clarifications though.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Has anyone read series "Earth Chronicle" by Zecheria Sitchin? He interpreted the oldest written text(Sumarian cuneiform) of the Origins of mankind. Its hard to believe because its seems so fantastic but it coincides with the same themes of all the ancient "Origin stories" from around the world. These cultures had no way of interaction, at least to date this isolation has not been disproved. The Olmecs(Meso-America)
Hindi books "Rig Veda" Egyptians, Asia I.E. Japan, Chine, . I realize geographically India,Mesopotamia and Egypt are close but we are talking 3,700 B.C. All have the same story of Beings descending from the heavens and giving us the Knowledge of Civilization. The one thing that strikes me is, after the Millenia of us being cave dwellers and wearing animal skins, stone tools etc.,it is literally over night that we start having Walled Cities, Organized Army's ,Agriculture, Astronomy. The ancients new that our planetary system was Heliocentric almost 4,000 B.C. and within 6,000 years of these coinciding "Ancient Mythos Origin stories" we are exploring space. Its interesting to me how we stayed stagnant for a Million years and we have progressed so much within a couple thousand . The Bible even talks about the Nephilim who come down "from the heavens" and find the earth beings beautiful and mate with them thus introducing new Genetic codes. We only use up to 10% of our Brain? 60% of our DNA is dormant? Just interesting.



okay this guy here micheal tsarion talks about origin of man and its religious similarities/myths... kinda out their but what religion isnt.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=44388